Experiencing math anxiety may be like the experience of physical pain

"It is not that math itself hurts; rather, the anticipation of math is painful,"

For many of us, anxiety about math performance isn't so much a question of whether it will happen, but at what level of math it kicks in (in my case, Calculus III, sophomore year in college). But, as the authors of a new paper on math anxiety point out, most forms of higher math didn't even exist until a few centuries ago. It's very unlikely that this sort of anxiety has evolved a specialized brain structure dedicated to it. So, the researchers used a combination of math quizzes and functional MRI scans to identify the areas of the brain associated with the fear of math.

It turned out to be one that was previously associated with the experience of physical pain. And it doesn't appear to be the first time that area has been borrowed for other purposes by evolution: it also helps register the discomfort of social rejection.

The test the authors devised was pretty ingenious. First, they took their subjects (28 total) and divided them based on their level of distaste for math, using a series of questions termed the Short Math Anxiety Rating-Scale, or SMARS. Then, they put them in the MRI tubes and exposed them to a series of quizzes, some math focused, others targeting verbal skills. To trigger anxiety, a small warning indicator changed color based on the nature of the next test: a yellow circle indicated math was on its way, while a blue square indicated verbal questions would follow.

This gave them several ways to eliminate extraneous signals. For one, they could detect the difference between people experiencing discomfort while performing math and when those same people were simply dreading the need to do so. And they could also separate it from a general performance anxiety, since this should also be present for the verbal tests. Finally, they could zero in on those subjects whose SMARS scores indicated they had anxiety about math performance.

This left them focusing on a limited number of brain regions, with the signals being strongest in the bilateral dorso-posterior insula, an area deep in the core of the brain. This was one of the key regions that was active ahead of any actual attempts to perform math, and didn't seem to be triggered by test-taking in general. Or, as the authors put it, "the neural responses in the current study aren’t merely an artifact of anticipating having to do a harder task; rather, this response appears to be specific to anticipating doing a math task."

In fact, getting signaled that a word test was coming actually dropped activity in the insula by a significant margin. The authors speculate this could reflect a "visceral relief" about being spared the need to do further math. "Anticipating the word task may have served as a kind of refuge," they suggest, "in that, for the moment at least, it meant one didn’t have to do math.

This region of the insula has been associated with the experience of pain in a variety of studies. So, the authors consider a number of other ideas about the activities that normally go on in this chunk of the brain. Some have suggested that it's actually involved in the recognition of events that threaten to cause bodily harm and the pain associated with it, while others have indicated it can be triggered by indirect forms of pain, such as social rejection. But the authors note the majority of published studies associate it with pain, and that it's possible to induce the experience of pain simply by stimulating the insula.

So, their conclusion is that we are actually dealing with a pain response, and one that's not triggered by doing math. "It is not that math itself hurts; rather, the anticipation of math is painful," they suggest. However, that pain may be enough to keep people from engaging with math during their school years. The authors point out the study also gave them a chance to confirm that the anxiety correlated with poor performance on the test questions.

I wonder if the reason why math makes people so anxious is the fear of being left behind. Other subjects, like history and geography, are pretty much just rote memorization, and in most cases the knowledge in those subjects is not very cumulative. For example, you can completely fail the test on the French and Indian War but ace the test on World War II. Mathematics, on the other hand, constantly requires you to build on the skills you have previously learned. If your foundation isn't solid, then it makes new material all that much harder to learn and understand.

In addition, it sucks when your teacher either refuses to or does not have the time to actually teach the material effectively. My Differential Equations II teacher in college completely sucked. He didn't teach the actual material at all. He simply went over the homework problems we couldn't solve (which were most of them because we didn't understand how to do them), and he rarely had time to answer all of our questions. Reading the textbook only goes so far. I really don't understand how I managed to pass that class.

Maybe that's why it's socially acceptable, even in academic circles, to not only be ignorant of math but proud of it, when ignorance in other areas, like geography, is unacceptable.

As with all ignorance, acceptability depends on extent. Also it depends on physical attractiveness.

Not being able to add/subtract/multiply/divide double digits with ease is, to me, a sign of impaired cognitive ability, while not understanding partial derivatives is accepted. I'm also not sure many people get razzed for sucking at geography.

I never got higher than a B in math, and only in two courses: High School Geometry, and a Statistics for Psychology class in college as a GE requirement. I was much better at writing proofs than I ever was trying to memorize formulas, which was always the sticking point. I did well in the Stats class because the instructor always allowed us to refer back to the base formula. The focus was on the problem-solving process and the results, not in knowing the formula by rote.

Because I realized I couldn't do the math, I changed from Physics to History major, and am now a librarian instead of whatever else I might have made of myself.

I teach math at the high school level in an urban charter. Our incoming freshmen take two math classes, Algebra 1 and my one-semester math remediation course, where I make sure fractions and decimals and integer operations are strong enough for high school-level work. Even more than that, however, I need to relieve that anxiety and remove the fear and loathing that has built up over time. It's not easy to do.

Personally, I believe math isn't taught correctly in most schools. It's usually taught by people who were in that 20-25% of people for whom math comes easily. That and a lack of curriculum focus (I prefer to focus on fewer concepts in Geometry, for instance, and go for deeper understanding rather than trying to tackle every single geometric concept). And yes, I was one of those people who just "got" math, but I came to teaching later in life and my thoughts on math education were heavily influenced by Paul Lockhart:

I believe most people didn't like math simply for the same reason and that is they didn't have the full understanding of the math functions and formulas. Geometry for an example. They feel confuse and finally abundant it all together. But for those who do, who would find math quite interesting to play with and may be found themselves quite addicted. And so they are getting better and better and more advanced than others. Pretty much it works quite the same way of playing computer games. When you are good with the games you tended to play more and more, 24/7 and non-stop until they really wore out of it. On the other hand when one didn't know the game that much, would pretty much not quite interested in it and play something else instead. Like reading the news.. instead?

When one who have the fully understanding but still stay-away-from math, there's a word for them also, and that is "- - - - -". I say it's "sloth", but you insert the blank.

But, as the authors of a new paper on math anxiety point out, most forms of higher math didn't even exist until a few centuries ago.

Actually, the math known to the Greeks, Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians, Mayans, etc., thousands of years ago was quite advanced enough to inspire anxiety in most of today's people.

On a more serious note, where did the research establish that the brain region was specifically associated with math anxiety rather than with anxiety in general? Maybe the verbal tests used for comparison were simply not sufficient to cause anxiety. But there are certainly verbal tasks, like speaking in front of a crowd, that can inspire anxiety. It isn't clear why different brain regions would be needed depending on the cause of the anxiety.

The authors point out the study also gave them a chance to confirm that the anxiety correlated with poor performance on the test questions.

That last line in the article is important and I don't think it got a high enough recognition in the research (or at least, high enough reporting).

It appears that math anxiety is painful for people that aren't good at math. I spent my time reading the article thinking I'd be freaking out about the verbal questions rather than the math questions. That last line revealed why.

It also implies that not just math is painful, but any question that you may not be good at answering is painful, from "in what countries are monotremes found" to "what is a rattlesnake's rattle made from" to "what is the average air velocity of an unladen swallow" to "what the fuck is a snookie?"

The authors point out the study also gave them a chance to confirm that the anxiety correlated with poor performance on the test questions.

That last line in the article is important and I don't think it got a high enough recognition in the research (or at least, high enough reporting).

It appears that math anxiety is painful for people that aren't good at math. I spent my time reading the article thinking I'd be freaking out about the verbal questions rather than the math questions. That last line revealed why.

It also implies that not just math is painful, but any question that you may not be good at answering is painful, from "in what countries are monotremes found" to "what is a rattlesnake's rattle made from" to "what is the average air velocity of an unladen swallow" to "what the fuck is a snookie?"

Maybe that's why it's socially acceptable, even in academic circles, to not only be ignorant of math but proud of it, when ignorance in other areas, like geography, is unacceptable.

I would argue that the difference is in the exactness of the responses. In most math, people are looking for an exact answer. There are some exceptions, but most scenarios don't allow you to say "about 100" when the actual number is 70 or 132. For geography, the expectation of precision is generally lower. Sure, you know Iraq is in the middle east and you know generally where the middle east is, but how precise would you be if you drew it on a blank map?

Maybe that's why it's socially acceptable, even in academic circles, to not only be ignorant of math but proud of it, when ignorance in other areas, like geography, is unacceptable.

I would argue that the difference is in the exactness of the responses. In most math, people are looking for an exact answer. There are some exceptions, but most scenarios don't allow you to say "about 100" when the actual number is 70 or 132. For geography, the expectation of precision is generally lower. Sure, you know Iraq is in the middle east and you know generally where the middle east is, but how precise would you be if you drew it on a blank map?

Pretty precise, but I was deployed to Iraq and had to learn my routes. But point taken.

I think the takeaway is we have a concrete understanding of geography and you would expect someone to know very precisely a place they've lived their whole life, have a reasonable grasp of surrounding states or provinces, and a general knowledge of where the major landmasses are in the globe.

I guess I was gauging social acceptance by mass media. To me, it's surprising how many journos are perfectly comfortable presenting numeric data without any decent context. And their readers don't seem to push back. I frequently see numbers out of context or in some completely insane context (e.g. if the dollars of the federal debt were laid end to end, they'd circle the earth X times) and I find it strange that most people are fine with that.

Funny, my math grades at school were always borderline D or C, that was because kids sucked at math so hard the teacher usually gave homework worth about 40% to 30% of the grade. I never bothered with homework.

On a side note and more or less related to math here's a true story:

I was studying at the campus library when a friend (who was a law student) approached me with a simple calculator. He asked me how to get a percentage and I explain him how; he was blank. Then I showed him on the calculator how it was done, three times until his face lit up and was very grateful that I taught him that. So as he left I went back to study when I heard him say "Guys! Guys! I figured out how to get a percentage!" So I looked up and saw him talk to 8 other students from his study group.

Two things crossed my mind at that moment:1.- People who DO suck at math study law (at least here.)2.- That would explain why a lawyer's fee is so high..

Do you want to eliminate Math anxiety? Easy: use Mathlab or a similar kind of software. Experiment with it for weeks and make as many mistakes as you possibly can. Little by little your level of confidence will rise to levels you thought were unimaginable. Confidence goes up and anxiety goes down.

I write software for a living and during critical demos at a client’s site I have the same anxiety I used to have in Math exams because I’m betting the company in 20 minutes. The sentiment is very similar to betting your future on the correctness of your test. To reduce anxiety we test the software to death; we simulate as many mistakes as we can. Confidence goes up and anxiety goes down.

At the levels we are talking there’s no room for ambiguity in math and software. A proof, or a program, is either correct or incorrect. Incorrect proofs and incorrect programs may work temporarily but you know that sooner or later they will blow up in your face.

Personally, I believe math isn't taught correctly in most schools. It's usually taught by people who were in that 20-25% of people for whom math comes easily.

At the elementary school levels at least, the teachers are not generally people to math comes easily. I overheard a conversation between a confused parent and her child's teacher over a question along the lines of "Draw lines to divide this hexagon into triangles. How many triangles did you make?" that had bothered them both. I imagine five years of palpable anxiety surrounding math could be a little bit contagious.

Maybe that's why it's socially acceptable, even in academic circles, to not only be ignorant of math but proud of it, when ignorance in other areas, like geography, is unacceptable.

I would argue that the difference is in the exactness of the responses. In most math, people are looking for an exact answer. There are some exceptions, but most scenarios don't allow you to say "about 100" when the actual number is 70 or 132. For geography, the expectation of precision is generally lower. Sure, you know Iraq is in the middle east and you know generally where the middle east is, but how precise would you be if you drew it on a blank map?

Pretty precise, but I was deployed to Iraq and had to learn my routes. But point taken.

Maybe that's why it's socially acceptable, even in academic circles, to not only be ignorant of math but proud of it, when ignorance in other areas, like geography, is unacceptable.

I would argue that the difference is in the exactness of the responses. In most math, people are looking for an exact answer. There are some exceptions, but most scenarios don't allow you to say "about 100" when the actual number is 70 or 132. For geography, the expectation of precision is generally lower. Sure, you know Iraq is in the middle east and you know generally where the middle east is, but how precise would you be if you drew it on a blank map?

Pretty precise, but I was deployed to Iraq and had to learn my routes. But point taken.

What. Ever. Sometime we try too hard to rationalize any weakness. Suck it up and try harder next time. Per the Research ("recent development meaning no dedicated neural circuitry evolved"), I should be anxious every time I use any modern device. Hmm...what about learning and neural plasticity?

Maybe that's why it's socially acceptable, even in academic circles, to not only be ignorant of math but proud of it, when ignorance in other areas, like geography, is unacceptable.

I would argue that the difference is in the exactness of the responses. In most math, people are looking for an exact answer. There are some exceptions, but most scenarios don't allow you to say "about 100" when the actual number is 70 or 132. For geography, the expectation of precision is generally lower. Sure, you know Iraq is in the middle east and you know generally where the middle east is, but how precise would you be if you drew it on a blank map?

Pretty precise, but I was deployed to Iraq and had to learn my routes. But point taken.

Sure, but where's Uzbekibekibekistanstan?

Don't recall that one, so I plugged it into my GPS. I thought it was reading off the coordinates, but it just keeps repeating, "9-9-9, 9-9-9..."

... you're stupid, which means you're worried other people will know you're stupid...

Not really, cf. Dunning and Kruger effect.

I find it quite understandable that interaction with math generates real sensations. I have been deriving almost physical pleasure from solving math problems for most of my life. I would hate to be on the opposite side of this equation.

Ok, just a reality check: did you ever hear anyone shout "ouch!" and cry in pain when shown a math problem? Or was it just a sigh of disappointment and frustration? Thought so.

It's just another piece of jumping to conclusions. For one, conclusions from MRI studies are notoriously unreliable. The fact that many studies find some activity in area X on stimulus Y, does not mean that X is responsible for the processing of Y. It just means that the blood flow to X is increased during the task the subject performs when presented with Y. Also, studies using just one type of stimulus, like pain, will always associate brain areas with pain. So, it's quite logical that if there is a brain area is involved in anticipating anything, or in release of tension, or in task switching, or in frustration, or in reward/punishment, it will show up in such a study, and thus in the literature be associated with pain. The reverse however doesn't hold. It's just correlation.

There are so many alternative explanations open, but no, since the most spectacular headline in our victim culture is "Math Anxiety is like Pain", that's the one it has to be.

Yes, because no one ever needs to give change a dollar (or perhaps, because their cash register does the algebra for them).

Algebra is all around you; you merely fail to recognize it.

Careful, this operation is algebraic in the sense that you need to solve something like "$2.37 + x = $5.00, so then what the f..k is x". But this thing is so commonplace that people might just know by rote that they just need to do the arithmetic $5.00 - $2.37.

Even if you don't know this by rote, it helps that the algebra part is so easy. Two big problems people have with algebra is:

1. People can't break big problems down into little ones, but the giving-change problem is little from the start.

2. They hate the symbolic variables in their formulae. But this problem is so little that people don't need to explicitly turn it into a formula, and don't get frightened by the x.